|
|
| |
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases —
for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case —
for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
|
| |
Federal Courts -
U. S. Supreme Court - June 28 - November 7, 2000
|
| |
Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, No. 99-699,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 28, 2000, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Respondent's complaint alleged petitioners association and one of its divisions violated New Jersey's public accommodations law,,(2000), and common law, by revoking his membership because of his sexual orientation. Petitioners appealed the judgment that held application of the statute violated. The Court found that the group's mission was to instill values in youth by adult leaders' expressions and examples. The official position was that avowed homosexuals were not to be group leaders. Respondent admitted public advocacy of homosexuality. His presence would have forced a message that the group accepted homosexual conduct. That a heterosexual member might openly disagree with the policy was irrelevant. The group's official position was sufficient forfreedom of association purposes. The state's interests embodied in the statute did not justify such severe intrusion on the group's rights to freedom of expressive association.prohibited the state from imposing such a requirement by application of its public accommodations law. The judgment was reversed.
|
|
| |
Hill v. Colo., No. 98-1856,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 28, 2000, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Petitioners sought an injunction against the enforcement of(1999), which made unlawful within 100 feet of a health care facility's entrance, any person knowingly approaching within eight feet of another person, without that person's consent, to pass a leaflet or handbill to, display a sign to, or engage in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person. The trial court granted summary judgment for respondent, holding that(1999) was not unconstitutional. Petitioners appealed and the appellate court affirmed. Petitioners appealed, and the state supreme court affirmed. Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari, claiming that(1999) was an unconstitutionally invalid time, place, and manner restriction. The court affirmed, holding that(1999) was a narrowly tailored, content neutral, valid time, place, and manner restriction, serving significant and legitimate governmental interests of protecting the public from confrontational and harassing conduct within regulated areas.
|
|
| |
Mitchell v. Helms, No. 98-1648,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 28, 2000, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: By writ of certiorari, the court addressed whether Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981,(Chapter 2), which provides government aid in materials and equipment to public and private schools, was a law respecting an establishment of religion. In reversing the lower court's decision, the court held that Chapter 2 was not such a law because it neither resulted in religious indoctrination by the government, because the law determined eligibility neutrally, allocated aid based on private choices, and did not provide aid that had an impermissible content, nor defined its recipients by reference to religion. To the extent thatand, conflicted with the holding, those cases were overruled. The plurality opinion rejected any distinction between direct and indirect aid and was concerned neither with the issue of divertibility nor whether the school receiving the aid was pervasively sectarian.
|
|
| |
Stenberg v. Carhart, No. 99-830,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 28, 2000, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Plaintiff physician filed suit challenging the constitutionality of(Supp. 1999), which criminalized performance of "partial birth abortions." The district court found the statute unconstitutional, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked any exception for the preservation of the health of the mother. Where substantial medical authority supported the proposition that banning a particular abortion procedure could endanger women's health, a prohibitory statute must include a health exception when the procedure is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. The statute was also unconstitutional because it imposed an undue burden on a woman's ability to choose a more common abortion procedure, thereby unduly burdening the right to choose abortion itself. The Court rejected a proffered narrowing interpretation of the statute because it conflicted with statutory language, and held that it was not required to certify the interpretation question to state court because the statute was not fairly susceptible to a narrowing construction.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback